www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/400,584
`
`01/06/2017
`
`Kenneth NORTH
`
`34500570001
`
`1183
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`CHUNG. MONG-SHUNE
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2142
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/04/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`e-office @ sternekessler. com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/400,584
`Examiner
`MONG-SHUNE CHUNG
`
`Applicant(s)
`NORTH et al.
`Art Unit
`2142
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 28 May 2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—20 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)I:l Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OBa and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190823
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Examiner’s Note
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`3.
`
`This Office Action is in response to amendment filed 05/28/2019, where the
`
`Applicant amended claims 1-3, 9-11, 16, 17, and 19; added claim 20; and claims 1-20
`
`are currently pending.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`4.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed on 05/28/2019, with respect to previous
`
`objection of claim 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the
`
`amendment. As such, the previous objection has been withdrawn.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-9, with respect to previous rejection of claims 3,
`
`11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 3
`
`view of the amendment. As such, the previous rejection of the instant claims have been
`
`withdrawn.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-11, with respect to previous rejection of
`
`independent claims 1, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered.
`
`The Applicant argued that Cammarata does not teach the limitation as currently
`
`amended, which was previously recited in claims 2, 10, and 17. The examiner generally
`
`agreed that Cammarata does not explicitly anticipates such limitation, as such, Kilgore
`
`was cited to teach such limitation in the previous office action. The Applicant further
`
`argued that Kilgore does not explicitly teach the limitation of “ during the installation of
`
`the distributed content, preventing, by an operating system on the client device,
`
`invocation of an application program interface”. The Applicant cited passages from the
`
`Kilgore reference indicating that the “ call to the CreateWindow API occurs regardless of
`
`Whether the Window is to be blocked’ and thus the operating system does not prevent
`
`the call to the API from being made. However, according to 11 [0062] of the published
`
`specification (US 20170201599 A1), which recites “ operating system 212 installs
`
`content 208 and the transmitted parameters without invoking API”. The disclosure of
`
`the specification is unlike what the Applicant had alleged in the remarks, meaning that
`
`the operating system does not prevent (or block) the API call, rather the operating
`
`system does not invoke (or make a call to) an API. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that “preventing invocation” is different than “without invoking”. Therefore,
`
`the Examiner must interpret claims in the context of the Applicant’s specification. MPEP
`
`§ 2111.01. As such, Kilgore teaches said limitation because, although the call to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 4
`
`CreateWindow API was made, it was not made by the operating system, rather, it was
`
`made by a control application (fig. 2 element 44), which is separate from the operating
`
`system (fig. 2 element 50). Therefore, the operating system does not make the call to
`
`the API. The combination of Cammarata and Kilgore teach all of the limitations of
`
`claims 1, 9, and 16.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, that all dependent claims are patentably
`
`distinguished over the cited prior art at least in view of the dependency from their
`
`respective independent claims, and requests that the rejections for all dependent claims
`
`be reconsidered and withdrew for the reasons argued above. However, their respective
`
`independent claims are now rejected under new grounds in view of the amendment and
`
`thus the dependent claims are likewise rejected.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`8.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
`invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences
`between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole
`would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not
`be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Cammarata, (US 20140337752 A1) (hereinafter Cammarata) in view
`
`of Kilgore et al., (US 20110246812 A1) (hereinafter Kilgore).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 5
`
`Referring to claim 1, Cammarata teaches a method for remotely configuring
`
`and controlling a client device without user input at the client device, the method
`
`comprising:
`
`providing usage activities at the client device (providing operation of the
`
`mobile communications terminal (e.g. client device) through user interface (720 820);
`
`Abstract and figs. 7 and 8);
`
`limiting usage of the client device by a user at the client device to a first set
`
`of the usage activities (first user interface is limited in usage that only allows a user to
`
`use basic set of functions; 1] [0005] and [0013]), wherein the first set includes an
`
`interaction activity (the basic set of functions including send/receive messages, take
`
`images, etc.; 1] [0005]);
`
`receiving, at the client device, an instruction and distributed content from a
`
`device controller (receiving information and change in applications pushed from a
`
`remote terminal (e.g. device controller) through remote user interface (see steps 901
`
`and 902); Abstract, 1] [0022], [0073], [0077], and figs. 1-4 and 7-9);
`
`based on the received instruction, initiating installation of the distributed
`
`content on the client device without receiving any input from the user at the client
`
`device to initiate the installation of the distributed content and without receiving
`
`any input from the user at the client device during the installation of the
`
`distributed content (received information and change in applications pushed (e.g.
`
`without receiving user input at the client device) from the remote terminal through
`
`remote user interface to the mobile communications terminal (see steps 901 and 902);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 6
`
`Abstract, 1] [0022], [0073], [0077], and figs. 1-4 and 7-9; based on the received
`
`commands, data and/or settings, automatically install such commands; 1] [0005]; where
`
`the install includes installing applications; 1] [0105] and fig. 13).
`
`Cammarata further teaches allowing management of the client device by the
`
`device controller according to a second set of the usage activities (allowing the
`
`configuration and applications on the mobile communications terminal be managed by
`
`the remote terminal through the remote user interface; Abstract, 1] [0005], [0105], and
`
`fig. 13; according to the set of activities including changing settings, adding and/or
`
`deleting applications, etc.; Abstract, 1] [0005], [0105], and fig. 13).
`
`Cammarata teaches the limitations above. Cammarata does not explicitly
`
`disclose any API being called during the installation of applications. However,
`
`Cammarata does not explicitly anticipates the following limitations at a level that is
`
`required for 35 U.S.C. § 102. Specifically, the limitation of during the installation of
`
`the distributed content, preventing, by an operating system on the client device,
`
`invocation of an application program interface.
`
`Kilgore teaches preventing, by an operating system on the client device,
`
`invocation of an application program interface (according 1] [0062] of the published
`
`specification, which recites “ operating system 212 installs content 208 and the
`
`transmitted parameters without invoking API”, per the specification, the limitation of the
`
`operating system preventing an invocation of the API means the operating system does
`
`not invoke an API; as such, the initial CreateWindow API is not invoked by the operating
`
`system 50, rather by control application 44 (e.g. preventing invocation by the operating
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 7
`
`system), which is separate from the operating system 50 as shown in fig. 2; 11 [0074]
`
`and fig. 2).
`
`Cammarata and Kilgore are analogous art to the claimed invention because they
`
`are directed toward devices with user interface (i.e. same field of endeavor).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Cammarata and Kilgore
`
`before them to modify the method of Cammarata to incorporate the function of
`
`suppressing unwanted pop-up dialog boxes as taught by Kilgore. One of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would be motivated to integrate the function of suppressing unwanted pop-up
`
`dialog boxes into Cammarata, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to
`
`prevent unwanted graphical user interface elements from cluttering the screen for
`
`efficient operation.
`
`Referring to claim 2, Cammarata teaches a method of remotely configuring and
`
`controlling a client device without user input at the client device. However, Cammarata
`
`does not explicitly anticipates the following limitations at a level that is required for 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102. Specifically, the limitation of the method of claim 1, wherein, during
`
`installation of the distributed content, the method further comprises:
`
`preventing, by the operating system on the client device, displaying on the
`
`client device requests for any input from the user of the client device.
`
`Kilgore further teaches preventing, by the operating system on the client
`
`device, displaying on the client device requests for any input from the user of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 8
`
`client device (pop-up dialog boxes and unwanted windows are suppressed and never
`
`presented to the user; 1] [0031], [0074]-[0085], and fig. 3).
`
`Referring to claim 3, Cammarata further teaches the method of claim 1, further
`
`comprising:
`
`receiving, at the client device, a second instruction and a setting property
`
`of the client device, wherein the setting property controls at least one of: a
`
`volume, a brightness level, a contrast level, and a color setting of the client
`
`device (the remote user interface allows changing settings of the mobile
`
`communications terminal including changing colors of virtual buttons; 1] [0089] and fig.
`
`11); and
`
`based on the second instruction, changing a setting of the client device
`
`according to the setting property without receiving any input from the user at the
`
`client device to change the setting of the client device, wherein changing the
`
`setting of the client device is a usage activity of the second set (the remote user
`
`interface allows changing settings of the mobile communications terminal based on at
`
`least the color settings; 1] [0089] and fig. 11; the changes are pushed (e.g. without
`
`receiving user input at the client device) from the remote terminal through remote user
`
`interface to the mobile communications terminal (see steps 901 and 902); Abstract, 1]
`
`[0022], [0073], [0077], and figs. 1-4 and 7-9).
`
`Referring to claim 4, Cammarata further teaches the method of claim 1, further
`
`comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 9
`
`receiving touch-related input from the user at the client device, wherein the
`
`touch-related input is related to a usage activity of the first set (receiving user
`
`issued command relating to a file (step 908); 1] [0083] and fig. 9; user operates the
`
`mobile communications terminal via touch display; 1] [0044], [0072] and figs. 1 and 7);
`
`storing the touch-related input in the client device; and
`
`transmitting the touch-related input to the device controller (the file related
`
`to the issued command is first received by the mobile communications terminal and
`
`then pushed to the remote user interface (step 908-909); 1] [0083] and fig. 9; the mobile
`
`communications terminal is a device comprising a controller 210 (Le. CPU) and memory
`
`240, so that the file is stored in at least memory 240 of the mobile communications
`
`terminal).
`
`Referring to claim 5, Cammarata further teaches the method of claim 1, further
`
`comprising:
`
`receiving, at the client device, a second instruction and a client parameter
`
`of the client device, wherein the client parameter controls at least one of: a
`
`browser on the client device, a content display mode of the client device, a
`
`homepage timeout property of the client device, a cache size on the client device,
`
`and a time interval for clearing bro wser-related cookies or user data (through the
`
`remote user interface, applications can be added or removed including a “browser”
`
`application; 1] [0105] and fig. 13); and
`
`based on the second instruction, installing the client parameter on the
`
`client device without receiving any input from the user at the client device to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 10
`
`install the client parameter on the client device, wherein installing the client
`
`parameter on the client device is a usage activity of the second set (the remote
`
`user interface allows applications to be added or removed including “browser”
`
`application; 1] [0105] and fig. 13; the changes are pushed (e.g. without receiving user
`
`input at the client device) from the remote terminal through remote user interface to the
`
`mobile communications terminal (see steps 901 and 902); Abstract, 1] [0022], [0073],
`
`[0077], and figs. 1-4 and 7-9).
`
`Referring to claim 7, Cammarata further teaches the method of claim 1,
`
`wherein the client device is pre-programmed to communicate with the device
`
`controller when the client device connects to a network (the mobile
`
`communications terminal is configured to communicate with the remote terminal (e.g.
`
`710) through a network such as network disclosed in figs. 5 and 6; 1] [0071] figs. 5-7).
`
`Regarding claims 9-13 and 15, these claims recite the client device that
`
`performs the steps of the method of claims 1-5 and 7 respectively; therefore, the same
`
`rationale of rejection is applicable.
`
`Referring to claim 16, Cammarata teaches a method for remotely configuring
`
`and controlling a client device without user input at the client device, the method
`
`comprising:
`
`receiving, at a device controller (remote terminal; 1] [0009], [0105], and fig. 13),
`
`a selection for remotely configuring the client device (remote user selects
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 11
`
`configuration to configure the mobile communications terminal (e.g. client device) from a
`
`remote terminal; 1] [0022], [0073], [0077],
`
`[0105], and figs. 1-4, 7, 9, and 13);
`
`based on the selection, determining distributed content for transmitting to
`
`the client device (based on the selection determined at least the applications to be
`
`added to the mobile communications terminal; 1] [0105] and fig. 13; where the
`
`configuration is transmitted to the mobile communications terminal from the remote
`
`terminal (see steps 901 and 902); Abstract, 1] [0022], [0073], [0077], and figs. 1-4 and 7-
`
`9); and
`
`transmitting, by the device controller, an instruction and the distributed
`
`content to the client device (transmit the configuration from the remote terminal to the
`
`mobile communications terminal (steps 901 and 902); Abstract, 1] [0022], [0073], [0077],
`
`and figs. 1-4 and 7-9), wherein the instruction is configured to cause the client
`
`device to install the distributed content without receiving any input from the user
`
`of the client device to initiate installation of the distributed content and without
`
`receiving any input from the user of the client device during the installation of the
`
`distributed content (received information and change in applications pushed (e.g.
`
`without receiving user input at the client device) from the remote terminal through
`
`remote user interface to the mobile communications terminal (see steps 901 and 902);
`
`Abstract, 1] [0022], [0073], [0077], and figs. 1-4 and 7-9; based on the received
`
`commands, data and/or settings, automatically install such commands; 1] [0005]; where
`
`the install includes installing applications; 1] [0105] and fig. 13).
`
`Cammarata teaches the limitations above. However, Cammarata does not
`
`explicitly anticipates the following limitations at a level that is required for 35 U.S.C. §
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 12
`
`102. Specifically, the limitation of during the installation of the distributed content,
`
`prevent, by an operating system on the client device, invocation of an application
`
`program interface.
`
`Kilgore teaches prevent, by an operating system on the client device,
`
`invocation of an application program interface (according ll [0062] of the published
`
`specification, which recites “ operating system 212 installs content 208 and the
`
`transmitted parameters without invoking API”, per the specification, the limitation of the
`
`operating system preventing an invocation of the API means the operating system does
`
`not invoke an API; as such, the initial CreateWindow API is not invoked by the operating
`
`system 50, rather by control application 44 (e.g. prevent invocation by the operating
`
`system), which is separate from the operating system 50 as shown in fig. 2; 11 [0074]
`
`and fig. 2).
`
`Cammarata and Kilgore are analogous art to the claimed invention because they
`
`are directed toward devices with user interface (i.e. same field of endeavor).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Cammarata and Kilgore
`
`before them to modify the method of Cammarata to incorporate the function of
`
`suppressing unwanted pop-up dialog boxes as taught by Kilgore. One of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would be motivated to integrate the function of suppressing unwanted pop-up
`
`dialog boxes into Cammarata, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to
`
`prevent unwanted graphical user interface elements from cluttering the screen for
`
`efficient operation.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 13
`
`Referring to claim 17, Cammarata teaches a method of configuring and
`
`controlling a client device without user input at the client device. However, Cammarata
`
`does not explicitly anticipates the following limitations at a level that is required for 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102. Specifically, the limitation of the method of claim 16, wherein the
`
`instruction is further configured to:
`
`prevent, by the operating system on the client device, displaying on the
`
`client device requests for any input from the user of the client device.
`
`Kilgore further teaches prevent, by the operating system on the client device,
`
`displaying on the client device requests for any input from the user of the client
`
`device (pop-up dialog boxes and unwanted windows are suppressed and never
`
`presented to the user; 11 [0031], [0074]-[0085], and fig. 3).
`
`Referring to claim 18, Cammarata further teaches the method of claim 16,
`
`further comprising:
`
`transmitting, by the device controller, a second instruction and a setting
`
`property of the client device, wherein the setting property controls at least one of:
`
`a volume, a brightness level, a contrast level, and a color setting of the client
`
`device and the second set of usage includes changing a setting of the client
`
`device based on the setting property (the remote user interface allows changing
`
`settings of the mobile communications terminal including changing colors of virtual
`
`buttons; 11 [0089] and fig. 11); and
`
`wherein the second instruction is configured to cause the client device to
`
`change a setting based on the setting property without receiving any input from
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 14
`
`the user of the client device to change the setting (the remote user interface allows
`
`changing settings of the mobile communications terminal based on at least the color
`
`settings; 1] [0089] and fig. 11; the changes are pushed (e.g. without receiving user input
`
`at the client device) from the remote terminal through remote user interface to the
`
`mobile communications terminal (see steps 901 and 902); Abstract, 1] [0022], [0073],
`
`[0077], and figs. 1-4 and 7-9).
`
`10.
`
`Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Cammarata in view of Kilgore as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of
`
`Meyer et al., (US 20140365561 A1) (hereinafter Meyer).
`
`Referring to claim 6, Cammarata in view of Kilgore teach limitations of claim 1
`
`above. However, Cammarata in view of Kilgore do not explicitly teach the method of
`
`claim 1, further comprising:
`
`determining whether a network connection exists between the client device
`
`and the device controller;
`
`in response determining that the network connection does not exist,
`
`determining whether off- line content is available to the client device; and
`
`in response to determining that the off-line content is available, retrieving
`
`the off-line content.
`
`Meyer teaches determining whether a network connection exists between
`
`the client device and the device controller;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 15
`
`in response determining that the network connection does not exist,
`
`determining whether off- line content is available to the client device; and
`
`in response to determining that the off-line content is available, retrieving
`
`the off-line content (When the network connection is available, the remote server is
`
`checked for an updated version of a resource, when the network connection is
`
`unavailable, the cached update or the local installation is used; 11 [0032] and fig. 2).
`
`The combination of Cammarata, Kilgore, and Meyer are analogous art to the
`
`claimed invention because they are directed toward interactions and interface between
`
`a client devices a remote server (i.e. same field of endeavor).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Cammarata in view of
`
`Kilgore, and further in Meyer before them to modify the method of Cammarata in view of
`
`Kilgore to incorporate the function of using cached update when the network connection
`
`to the server is unavailable as taught by Meyer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`motivated to integrate the function of using cached update when network connection is
`
`unavailable into Cammarata in view of Kilgore, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success, in order to retrieve the updated resource even when the network connection is
`
`unavailable for uninterrupted operation.
`
`Regarding claim 14, the instant claim recites the client device that performs the
`
`steps of the method of claim 6; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 16
`
`11.
`
`Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cammarata
`
`in view of Kilgore as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of London et al., (US
`
`5831609) (hereinafter London).
`
`Referring to claim 8, Cammarata in view of Kilgore teach the limitations of claim
`
`1 above. However, Cammarata in view of Kilgore do not explicitly teach the method of
`
`claim 1, wherein the usage activities are determined by a modified operating
`
`system of the client device.
`
`London teaches the usage activities are determined by a modified operating
`
`system of the client device (the usage activities (e.g. viewing and retrieving data
`
`associated to application executed on a native terminal running a native operating
`
`system like “Windows/NT”) are determined by a modified operating system (e.g. X-
`
`window system) of the client device (e.g. X-client); col. 2 lines 25-46 and col. 7 line 59-
`
`col. 8 line 16).
`
`The combination of Cammarata, Kilgore, and London are analogous art to the
`
`claimed invention because they are directed toward interactions and interface between
`
`a client devices a remote device (i.e. same field of endeavor).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Cammarata in view of
`
`Kilgore, and further in London before them to modify the method of Cammarata in view
`
`of Kilgore to incorporate the remote viewing function as taught by London. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate the remote viewing function into
`
`Cammarata in view of Kilgore, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 17
`
`remotely access applications that are not executed natively on the remote device for
`
`efficient operation.
`
`12.
`
`Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Cammarata in view of Kilgore as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tylor
`
`et al., (US 20160209968 A1) (hereinafter Tylor).
`
`Referring to claim 19, Cammarata in view of Kilgore teach the limitations of claim
`
`16 above. Cammarata further teaches receiving user issued command via a touch
`
`display (1] [0044], [0072], [0083], and figs. 1, 7, and 9). However, Cammarata in view of
`
`Kilgore do not explicitly teach the method of claim 16, further comprising:
`
`receiving, by the device controller, first touch-related input from the client
`
`device;
`
`receiving, by the device controller, second touch-related input from
`
`another client device; and
`
`performing data analytics on the first touch-related input and the second
`
`touch-related input.
`
`Taylor teaches receiving, by the device controller, first touch-related input
`
`from the client device;
`
`receiving, by the device controller, second touch-related input from
`
`another client device; and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 18
`
`performing data analytics on the first touch-related input and the second
`
`touch-related input (receiving user touch input from a plurality of touch-screen
`
`devices, where a processor analyzes the touch event data; 11 [0113]).
`
`The combination of Cammarata, Kilgore, and Taylor are analogous art to the
`
`claimed invention because they are directed toward displaying and manipulating user
`
`interface (i.e. same field of endeavor).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Cammarata in view of
`
`Kilgore, and further in Taylor before them to modify the method of Cammarata in view of
`
`Kilgore to incorporate the function of analyzing touch input from the plurality of touch-
`
`screen devices as taught by Taylor. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated
`
`to integrate said function into Cammarata in view of Kilgore, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success, in order to allow mapping of an identified touch input to an
`
`application with a specific user independently from code of the application as suggested
`
`by Taylor (Abstract and 11 [0003]) for ease of implementing functionality without
`
`additional coding from the application developer.
`
`13.
`
`Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Cammarata in view of Kilgore as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Shin
`
`et al., (US 20160210016 A1) (hereinafter Shin).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/400,584
`Art Unit: 2142
`
`Page 19
`
`Referring to claim 20, Cammarata in view of Kilgore teach the limitations of claim
`
`16 above. However, Cammarata in view of Kilgore do not explicitly teach the method
`
`of claim 16, further comprising:
`
`displaying a drag-and-drop user interface for the device controller, wherein
`
`the drag-and- dro